Luminous efficiency of meteors derived from ablation model after assessment of its range of validity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. The luminous efficiency, τ , can be used to compute the pre-atmospheric masses of meteoroids from corresponding recorded meteor brightnesses. The derivation of the luminous efficiency is non-trivial and is subject to biases and model assumptions. This has led to greatly varying results in the last decades of studies. Aims. The present paper aims to investigate how a reduction in various observational biases can be achieved to derive (more) reliable values for the luminous efficiency. Methods. A total of 281 meteors observed by the Fireball Recovery and InterPlanetary Observation Network (FRIPON) are studied. The luminous efficiencies of the events are computed using an ablation-based model. The relations of τ as a function of the pre-atmospheric meteoroid velocity, v e , and mass, M e , are studied. Various aspects that could render the method less valid, cause inaccuracies, or bias the results are investigated. On this basis, the best suitable meteors were selected for luminous efficiency computations. Results. The presented analysis shows the limits of the used method. The most influential characteristics that are necessary for reliable results for the τ computation were identified. We study the dependence of τ on the assumed meteoroid’s density, ρ , and include improved ρ -values for objects with identified meteoroid stream association. Based on the discovered individual biases and constraints we create a pre-debiased subset of 54 well-recorded events with a relative velocity change >80%, a final height <70 km, and a Knudsen number Kn < 0.01; this last value indicates that the events were observed in the continuum-flow regime. We find τ -values in the range between 0.012% and 1.1% for this pre-debiased subset and relations of τ to v e and M e of: τ =7.33⋅ v e −1.10 and τ =0.28⋅ M e −0.33 . Conclusions. The derived luminous efficiency of meteoroids depends on the assumed material density. Our results indicate that the applied debiasing method improves the analysis of τ from decelerated meteoroids. The underlying method is only valid for meteors in the continuum-flow regime. These events tend to have low end heights, large masses, and high deceleration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".